Reflections on the concept of informal social security and communal lifestyle in South Africa

1 Introduction

The system of social security in South Africa has four pillars, namely, social insurance, social assistance, social relief of distress and private savings.1 This contribution only focuses on the social insurance component of social security. Formal public-regulated social security measures play a significant role in the daily lives of many poor South Africans.2 It serves a supplementary role, in offering income security, reducing poverty, and fostering social unity through various primarily government-managed social support programmes.3 On the one hand, social insurance programmes are funded by contributions from both employers and employees. Social insurance safeguards employees from income reduction caused by unemployment, job-related injuries and illnesses and retirement.4 On the other hand, the social assistance programmes primarily consist of non-contributory, means-tested systems financed by the state to offer regular income aid to at-risk groups, including the elderly, disabled, child caregivers, and low-income individuals.5 Social grants allow households to fulfil essential needs and diminish poverty and inequality.6

The formal social system includes formal sector employees and specific groups (the elderly, youth, and disabled) but excludes the “missing middle” of informally employed adults from coverage.7 This results in dependence on informal social security, particularly for enduring risks such as chronic disease, disability, and joblessness. Informal social security has a very important supplementary and supportive purpose in supporting the abovementioned formal social security systems. This article does not dwell on narratives about formal social security measures, but it places the spotlight on the often-neglected account of informal social security in South Africa.8 As discussed above, informal social security plays a key role in the development of tailor-made safety nets, or indigenous knowledge systems, used by households as an umbrella of protection to fill the cessations of income against certain contingencies, such as poverty, unemployment, inequalities and unpredictable pandemics in South Africa.

Purcell defines an indigenous knowledge system (IKS) as “the body of historically constituted (emic) knowledge instrumental in the long-term adaptation of human groups to the biophysical environment”.9 This knowledge, Purcell states, incorporates knowledge “acquired by local people over a period of time through accumulation of experiences as well as their intricate relationship with the environment”.10 He maintains that “IKS informs the skills, practices of local people and provides the basis for daily problem-solving strategies for local communities”.11 The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) acknowledges that “for rural and indigenous peoples, local knowledge informs decision-making about fundamental aspects of day-to-day life”.12 This narration evinces that African households have relied on informal social security and indigenous knowledge systems to provide protection in the event of exposure to contingencies such as sickness, invalidity, old age, death and drought.13 Olivier and Dekker define “informal social security as the counterpart of formal social security, covering social protection mechanisms outside the formal social security paradigm”.14 According to the authors, “informal social security includes reference to informal-sector social security, as well as to kinship-or community-based social security”.15 As will be shown below, informal social security performs a role and function similar to those of formal social security,16 in that it provides a safety net against certain risks that may befall households or individuals.17 Informal social security exists within an indigenous knowledge system around which local people organise their knowledge, and means of support against complex risks.18 Consequently, in order to escape the scourge of poverty, unemployment and inequality, households in South Africa have relied on institutions such as family,19 chieftainships, community members20 and churches to provide for their survival in times of hardship and crisis.21 Over and above these institutions, households have relied on traditional forms of informal social security as a way of life for their survival.22 Solo acknowledges that “Africans in their day-to-day existence are united together by what may be termed African traditional values”.23 In the author’s view;

it is because of these values (which are all about solidarity, collective responsibility, compassion, equality, unity, self-determination, human respect and human dignity) that individuals subsist as families and become closely interlaced communities, which form larger societies. 24

Against this background, this article unpacks and provides a conceptual understanding of the role played by informal social security in South Africa. The article also examines how the indigenous knowledge system is used in the context of informal social security. Finally, the article concludes by examining the challenges facing informal social security and makes some recommendations based on these challenges.

2 Conceptual and legal considerations in informal social security

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 affirms the universal right of everyone to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance for those unable to support themselves and their dependants.25 It orders the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of these rights. The Constitution does not define the concept of “social security”,26 but rather left the concept to gather meaning through policy documents, court jurisprudence, and academic discourse.

Nevertheless, social security refers to government policies, which ensure that all people have adequate economic and social protection when they are too young, sick, old or injured to care for themselves.27 Devereux defines informal social security as “a subset of coping strategies that involve drawing support from other households, individuals and associations, particularly during periods of livelihood hardship”.28 In the context of wide-ranging social security goals, informal social security provides a fundamental social risk management strategy that supports social and human development and increases people’s opportunities, while reducing risks, shocks and vulnerabilities.29 The importance of informal social security is that it provides a safety net for people excluded from formal social security. 30

In view of the exclusionary nature of formal social security, which is employment-based, households31 have developed innovative strategies and measures to mitigate the impact of poverty,32 unemployment33 and pandemics. These strategies and measures have not only enhanced the livelihood of indigenous people, but also their economic and social rights stature. Therefore, the purpose of informal social security from its conceptual stage was to provide a safety net for households that do not have access to formal social security.34 Furthermore, despite the constitutional guarantee of the right to have access to social security, not everyone is included within the scope of coverage and protection of social security measures.35 In fact, the majority of workers in the informal economy are excluded from the mainstream social security system.36 Dekker asserts that “the exclusionary nature of the formal social security system has led many people to devise social security mechanisms outside of the state-regulated system”.37 It is in this context that communities have tailor-made informal social security measures in order to protect themselves against unforeseen eventualities that plunge them into poverty.

Summarily, informal social security refers to self-organised family, community or informal sector coping mechanisms.38 It represents a way of life within families and communities39 and incorporates values40 that promote togetherness and a deep sense of belonging.41 Norton et al aver that the traditional forms of solidarity and collective organisation operate in line with principles of reciprocity.42 The core principle of reciprocity, togetherness and a deep sense of belonging is captured in the African notion of ubuntu or humanity.

It is submitted that the notion of informal social security is intrinsically linked to the fundamental values of ubuntu. In the next part we discuss the fundamental value of ubuntu viewed through the lens of informal social security.

3 “Ubuntu” viewed through the lens of informal social security

Academic literature and jurisprudence of the South African courts are replete with references to ubuntu, botho and humanity, but most do not provide an explanation of its causal relationship with traditional informal social security coping mechanisms.43 It is important to appreciate ubuntu broadly rather than in a narrow way. It is suggested that the notion should not simply be understood as a “label” but as a significant all-encompassing web of indigenous values and ethics.44

The concept of ubuntu incorporates the notions of humaneness, social justice and fairness.45 In S v Makwanyane46 Mahomed J articulated that ubuntu endorses;

enjoyment of love towards our fellow men and women; the joy and the fulfilment involved in recognising their innate humanity ... and the moral energies which it releases both in the givers and the society which they serve and are served by.

Additionally, the Constitutional Court in Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Economic Development, Eastern Cape47 emphasised the importance of ubuntu by emphasising that an “individual is not an island unto [him/herself]”. The Court further confirmed that ubuntu “emphasises communality and the interdependence of the members of a community”.48 Mbiti, in defining ubuntu, refers to an individual’s personal identity viewed within the framework of the community.49 In the author’s view, “only in terms of other people does the individual become conscious of his/her own being, his/her own duties, his privileges and responsibilities towards himself and towards other people”. Mbiti continues by explaining that when the individual “suffers, he does not suffer alone but with the corporate group”, and when they celebrate, they rejoice with neighbours and family. Mbiti concludes that “[w]hatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group, and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual”.50

In the context of informal social security, Maranz notes that group solidarity entails “mutual economic and social support, hospitableness ... [and] putting group interest ahead of individual interest to the extent of showing a definite bias against individuality”.51 A number of other scholars have elaborated on the ideals of ubuntu.52 Ramose depicts ubuntu in its hyphenated sense as “be-ing”.53 Zvomuya refers to ubuntuism as an African philosophical framework that is characterised by interconnectedness of the spirituality of human beings, of family structure, and of interpersonal relationships.54 Academic discourse is replete in claiming that this self-realisation can only come about through meaningful and positive interaction with others.55

This article supports the view that ubuntu may be traced back to the biblical ideal of community which is fundamental and universal in nature.56 Bekker notes that “ubuntu should be retained as it provides our courts with a constitutional value [imbedded] with a ‘local flavour’ intrinsically linked to our troubled past and the consequent and ongoing bridge-building process of our nation”.57

The foregoing discussion has demonstrated that African communities appreciate the intrinsic role of ubuntu in the context of communal subsistence.58 In practice, the communal subsistence is notable in the informal social arrangements, which can be divided into traditional support systems and self-organised systems.59

On the one hand, self-organised informal social security comprises a particular group of people within the community, including families and neighbours.60 As discussed in more detail below, “black tax”, stokvels, societies and rotation money schemes are good examples of this type of informal social security. This type of traditional support system is based on the principles of solidarity and reciprocity. Under the traditional support system, the family serves as the first line of defence for members who are unable to provide for themselves.61

As stated above, traditional institutions such as families, communities and churches are an essential element of social and informal social security support for many African households. Nevertheless, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “the role of informal support is not fully recognised in social security extension strategies”. 62 Dekker takes the argument further and contends that “the definition of social security should include a move away from a risk-based approach to a broader concept of providing everyone with a minimum standard of living”. 63 Viewed in the context of informal social security, it is argued that this approach has the potential to provide communities that rely solely on tailor-made indigenous informal social security with a decent standard of living. Due to the limited cover of formal social security measures, indigenous communities have over generations relied on informal social security measures for their survival. 64 Indigenous community-based welfare practices, also referred to as “African innovations”, have promoted social well-being in Africa over the centuries. 65 In this context, informal social security represents more than an expression of African cultural values, as it also serves as both a supplement and a substitute for formal social security arrangements. It is firmly embedded in customary law and social institutions. 66 These informal safety net measures transcend informal forms of support between family members and neighbours. It includes institutionalised, culturally-mandated practices such as livestock sharing, communal food storage, cooperative harvesting and citizenship contributions. 67

As discussed above, informal social security arrangements play a crucial role in assisting individuals, families and communities to manage risk, and in providing support to vulnerable groups such as the elderly, orphans, the sick, and those who have lost their loved ones and livelihoods. In practice, the following types of informal social security arrangements are available, namely, (i) family and kin obligations; (ii) community support networks; (iii) civil society; and (iv) mutual aid associations.68

In the sections that follow, the discussion covers a number of tailor-made traditional informal social security safety nets that form part of informal social security practices relevant to families and communities. Nonetheless, before discussing these methods in more detail, the notion of the “extended family” is explained below.

4 The extended family

In African culture, the word “family” is not confined to the concept of a nuclear family, namely, a family headed by a male breadwinner, with one wife and one or more children. 69 Rather, the concept of family includes the following: relatives; extended family members; dependants; and informal communal support systems. 70 In this regard, Iganus and Haruna note that within African culture, traditional values are not primarily associated with the individual, but with his or her family and community. 71 In other words, no persons are without a family. Members live in kinship with one another, strictly adhering to the norms and values of their family and society. Customarily, in the context of informal social security, a person who is dependent on another for subsistence and livelihood forms an essential part of the notion of “family”. Olivier argues that in the context of formal social security, the notion of a “dependant” is linked to the concept of the nuclear family. Therefore, it is contended that this concept needs to be redefined and extended in the context of informal social security to make provision for the realities in developing countries, especially in rural areas where extended families are predominant. 72 However, it should be noted that traditional cultural practices can also threaten the well-being of children. For example, cultural values sometimes view children as personal and collective property, which may encourage specific practices that create vulnerabilities and harm children, such as forced labour, 73 early marriages 74 and family murders, in an attempt to maintain the family’s status. 75 It is submitted that these phenomena are some of the rare negative aspects associated with the notion of the extended family in the context of informal social security. The discussion below turns to various kinds of informal social security measures often adopted in both developed and traditional segments of society.

5 “Black tax” as an overarching form of informal social security

Generally, there is a broad network of traditional informal safety nets that are intrinsically linked to the well-being of indigenous societies during times of hardship. These traditional informal practices have played an important role in providing a safety net against misfortune. So, for example, “black tax” serves as a supportive web in many African communities. Magubane defines this notion as the social and economic support that the black middle class provides to their extended family or kinship. This could include money, shelter, food and clothing.76 According to Mhlungu, black tax is a fairly recent and well-intentioned shorthand that articulates the financial responsibility of providing for one’s extended family.77 The term originated in South Africa and refers to the financial obligation placed on family members who experience upward financial success to support their relatives who are less fortunate. The successful person often is the first one in a poor family who graduates and who obtains higher-paying employment.

Black tax aims to mitigate the impact of generational poverty on many black South Africans.78 Scholars acknowledge that black tax has its historical roots in the history of the inequalities created by apartheid in South Africa.79 In this regard, apartheid caused significant harm by excluding Africans from formal employment and social security systems.80 Black tax is not limited to South Africa in that it forms an irrefutable part of African culture and is intrinsically related to the philosophy of ubuntu.81 Magubane expands on two components of black tax.82 The first relates to the deep societal level of discrimination and continued inequality because of the apartheid legacy, which is still being experienced by the majority of South Africans. The second focuses on the financial obligation of the black middle class towards their extended family members as a result of exposure to social ills (for example, poverty, unemployment and continued inequality).83 As discussed above, the concept of black tax finds its meaning within families who have experienced the hardships of life. It is an informal term for the hurdles caused by structural discrimination that black people have to overcome in order to access quality education, employment, and other amenities of life.84

Senne records that black tax manifests itself in different ways, such as sending groceries to parents, paying school fees for siblings, or sending cash to cousins or distant relatives.85 The author adds that this exchange is an inescapable commitment, while others see it as a way of restoring dignity to generations of black families that have been disenfranchised by social, economic and political subjugation. 86

6 The lending of domestic animals

It is significant to note that informal social security and traditional cultural practices also extend to other jurisdictions in Africa. For example, Ambelu, Birhanu and Bayou acknowledge that in Ethiopia, for instance, the traditional practice of dabare among pastoral groups ensures that better-off community members lend milking cattle to poorer households with children.87 Among the Maasai in Kenya, extended family members replaced livestock lost due to environmental disasters, thereby enabling the family to cope with this loss.88 Similarly, practices such as kuronzera in Zimbabwe89 and mafisa in Botswana90 allow poor families to borrow cattle for farming and milking purposes.91 Mosito mentions that the mafisa system of traditional support involves the lending of cattle, sheep, goats and horses to a poorer family so that they can plough, obtain milk and use these animals for various activities.92 He notes that under this system, once cattle have been loaned to a person, they are permitted to earmark the first progeny of such animals for the original owner and the next offspring for themselves. In Mosito’s view, the borrower is permitted to do this for as long as the animals continue to be in their possession.93 In addition, when the offspring grows up and produces more progeny, the same practice continues down the line.

Mosito further states that the beneficiary to whom the domestic animals are entrusted enjoys all the benefits related to such an animal. This includes the enjoyment of its meat when it dies, as if they were the owner of the livestock.94 Nonetheless, the owner can recall the original animals and the progeny earmarked for the original owner at any time.95 The philosophy behind this custom is to ensure that the poor acquire animals in order for their families to survive.96 Scholars are of the view that the mafisa system provides “short-term relief to the person borrowing the animals”, hence the maxim kgomo ya mafisa re e gama re lebile tsela (plainly translated, this means that as the borrower, you cannot claim to be the owner of the cattle when you milk it).97

This article supports the view that informal safety nets have played a very important role for poor households with children in developing countries.98 Nonetheless, critics against informal social security arrangements raise the counter-arguments that informal social security measures provide short-term assistance; it offers limited benefits; and it may be degrading to the extent that it may potentially stigmatise the poor as well as increase existing power imbalances between the fortunate and the poor.99 This article does not support these negative views. It is argued that informal social security measures have over the centuries played a significant role to fill gaps where there is no other means of assistance and, in many instances, there are no alternatives.

7 Stokvels promoting informal social security

Within the South African context, another vital form of informal social security is the “stokvel” system. A stokvel is also referred to as a voluntary savings organisation.100 A group of people would conclude a savings arrangement whereby each member of the group contribute an amount of money (for example, R500) each month. In a stokvel comprising 12 friends, each person gets one chance a year to take home the month’s collected cash.101 In other words, each person in the group receives a lump sum of, in this case, R6 000 once a year.

Stokvel systems are widespread throughout the country and provide safety nets for people who fall outside the ambit of formal social insurance systems. In an important development, there are indications that certain financial institutions are beginning to recognise the existence of stokvels and are accommodating these associations with formal bank accounts. 102

8 Community support by chiefs, neighbours and community members

There is broad consensus in academic literature that informal social protection arrangements are essential for helping people, families and communities in Africa to manage risk and support vulnerable populations such as the elderly, orphans, the sick, and those who have lost loved ones.103 As alluded to above, in this context, the extended family system play a significant role in providing a safety net when individuals encounter lifecycle crises such as hunger, sickness, death, old age, unemployment and injury. Similarly, community support networks also play a critical role in meeting the social and economic needs of people experiencing crises.104

In practice, the village chiefs and other community members provide this assistance. Although this type of support is steadily decreasing due to urbanisation and industrialisation, it is still practised in some rural areas. In many ethnic groups, such as the Batswana, Basotho and Bapedi, the chiefs allocate masotla (tribal fields) and kgamelo (milk paid cattle) to

the indigent.105 While the chiefs still wield considerable power, this situation appears to be changing, although there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some of the traditional initiatives remain in place in some parts of the country. The term masotla (tribal fields) is defined by Tesliuc et al as “massive fields that belonged to the chief”.106 Tesliuc et al explain that “these fields were prepared by the mephato (groups arranged by age) on a voluntary basis before the rest of the community was permitted to plough the land”.107 Furthermore, the authors maintain that “the produce from masotla (including sorghum, maize, beans, maize, millet, cowpeas and groundnuts) was stored in tribal granaries (difalana)”.108 The authors also record that “during a drought season or in times of other natural disasters, the food was then distributed to the community”. Similarly, “disadvantaged people such as orphans, destitute people, and chronically ill individuals were fed from the difalana from time to time”.109

Furthermore, Tesliuc et al mention that the chief as a means of livelihood sometimes gave kgamelo (milk paid cattle) to the poorer members of the community, but they were more commonly entrusted to prominent members of the tribe who would herd them.110 The responsibility of the herdsman was to milk the cattle on behalf of the chief.111 The milk was then poured into a milk sack (lekuka) each day to thicken it, and then brought to the chief to be distributed.112 Besides providing for his wives, it was a common practice for the chief to supply milk to the poor, orphans, or other vulnerable groups in the community.113 Apart from these kinds of assistance provided by the chiefs, other support systems were organised by neighbours or the community as a whole. Common examples include the mafisa, majako, go tshwarateu and molaletsa systems.114 As discussed above, the mafisa system was a special contract whereby well-off relatives or members of the community placed one or more cattle under the care of a destitute person.115 The recipient herdsman took care of these cattle for an unspecified period and had the right to use them as draught animals and as a source of milk and transportation, in order to fetch water or firewood. If the cattle burgeoned in number, it was common practice to reward the herdsman with a heifer (kgomo ya mafisa),116 together with any offspring that it may subsequently produce. Ownership of the cattle remained with the original owner, who could claim back the cattle after an agreed period. 117

According to Noyoo and Boon, “the majako system allowed poor people to sell their labour and work in the fields of wealthy members of the community, in exchange for a share of the harvest”.118 Likewise, Mupedziswa and Ntseane posit that “go tshwarateu or bodisa provided able-bodied poor people with an opportunity to escape poverty by looking after other people’s cattle, and to receive a cow each year as payment”.119 Letsema or molaletsa constituted yet another form of non-formal social security, in that it allowed members of the community to perform voluntary work on behalf of a deserving family.120 For instance, Noyoo and Boon, citing Letseka, noted that “if a family wanted to clear a field to be cultivated, the family would invite neighbours and other people in the community to a letsema”.121 In the authors’ view, “any neighbour who refused to participate was made aware that he/she should not expect to be assisted when he/she called a letsema”.122

9 Indirect psychological support

It is suggested that informal social security extends beyond the mentioned arrangements and that it includes indirect forms of psychological support. In a number of traditional African societies, children are encouraged to respond to intermittent incidents of violence through story telling. Grandparents are a source of wisdom and moral inspiration. For example, the interactions between children and grandparents through story telling are encouraged as a way of fostering and reinforcing children’s sense of belonging and connectedness.123 Madoerin states that in Tanzania, a psychosocial support programme was established for grandparents and grandchildren in 2005 as part of the kwawazee pension provision programme, where children and grandparents occasionally meet to talk about everyday issues. 124

10 Trends and challenges facing informal social security

This section discusses the current trends and challenges facing the informal social security initiatives. Unfortunately, a picture is developing indicating that some of the underpinnings of informal social security are gradually being eroded. According to Tesliuc et al,125 indigenous support systems are no longer being practised with the same intensity in most parts of society due to the diminishing role of chieftainship, as well as urbanisation, globalisation, self-centredness of communities, agricultural reforms, climate change126 and other social challenges.127 Similarly, Seekings points out that

contemporary ethnographic studies ... [report] that the extended family system [is] ... threatened by the rise in individualism128 and decline in perceived obligations towards kin ... [and] parents.129

Furthermore, there is an increasing number of young people who are migrating from rural villages to urban cities in search of a better life.130

This partly contributes to the diminishing practice of indigenous support practices.131 In some instances, the cities where indigenous migrants settle have become “cultural melting pots” where new cultures are created.132 Kilama admits that “Westernisation, driven by capitalism, has shaped these cities, where the motto is ‘survival of the fittest’”.133 It is argued that the negative influence of Western culture has contributed significantly to the loss of ubuntu in African cities. Consequently, people have become individualistic and self-centred. It is theorised that the focus may very well be shifting to corruption at the expense of available resources, which should ideally be intended to benefit poor communities or households.134 Furthermore, the scourge of the COVID-19 pandemic and devastating floods in especially Kwa-Zulu Natal have caused untold suffering to many.135 The impact of COVID-19 and natural disasters has had tremendous adverse consequences for informal social security. Pandemics and natural calamities go to the root of informal social security structures that have existed for years. For example, many communities were unable to implement crop rotation schemes because of social distancing directives and floods.136 In fact, during the COVID-19 lock-down period many households were unable to attend the activities of stokvels and work in the fields on a regular basis.137

Climate change is also having far-reaching consequences for the indigenous social security system.138 For example, the dry conditions associated with climate change have influenced the production of food and other schemes, such as crop rotation and the chief’s granary. 139

Another social security trend that has emerged is that African governments have implemented different types of non-contributory interventions in addition to informal social security measures. Examples of this are public work programmes, social transfers, subsidies, training and programmes to facilitate access to social services and productive activities.140 Included among these measures are cash-for-work programmes, conditional cash transfers and social support services.141 Social support services often complement social transfers, such as activities for children; activities to support and sensitise beneficiaries to the importance of education; services to facilitate access to free health care; and non-contributory health insurance. It is surmised that these cash transfers supplement informal social security measures and aid many poor African households during times of pandemics and natural disasters. It should further be noted that the role played by African families is extremely important as a community response not only to COVID-19, but also crises such as HIV. In South Africa, affected households in need of food often send their children to live with relatives. Relatives are then responsible for meeting the immediate needs of such children.142 However, it is argued that problems experienced by extended families in taking care of children can partly be ascribed to a lack of knowledge about the available formal social grants, while in other cases children become caregivers themselves or even heads of households.143 In many cases, such children become increasingly exposed to malnutrition, ill-health, abuse and exploitation. Where older persons are caregivers of young children, the former are sometimes unaware of the availability of other grants, such as the Child Support Grant, the Care Dependency Grant for disabled children, and the Foster Child Grant.144

Despite these eroding trends pertaining to informal social security, it is the contention of this article that the role of informal social security cannot be dismissed as being insignificant. As discussed in other parts of the contribution, in African countries, non-contributory social security programmes have played an important role in easing and softening poverty and vulnerabilities associated therewith. 145

11 The value of informal social security

This article emphasises the point that the development of informal social security is linked to the problem of poverty and the vast number of people who are excluded from the formal social security framework. It originated from the extended family context, where support was given to family members. Eventually, it expanded due to increased socio-economic needs in most traditional communities. The family acted as the first line of protection against basic risks and contingencies. The traditional informal social security safety nets bring into focus the important role that communal existence has played viewed in the context of social security in Africa. Informal social security viewed in the context of communal existence validates the important role played by the notion of ubuntu and other constitutional values such human dignity.146 In S v Makwanyane the Constitutional Court placed a high premium on “the intrinsic worth of human beings ... who are entitled to be treated as worthy of respect and concern”. The Court highlighted the fact that the right to human dignity “is the foundation of many of the other rights that are specifically enshrined” in the South African Bill of Rights.147

To this end, it is argued that traditional informal social security measures are the embodiment of the modern-day human right to human dignity that underlies other fundamental human rights such as equality, the right to life, the right to fair labour practices and the right to social security. Informal social security practices differ from county to county and from people to people, but the general idea behind informal social security safety nets is to provide a bedrock and means of support to households against socio-economic challenges associated with poverty, unemployment, inequalities and other risks.

Thus, the role of indigenous informal social security cannot be ignored. It covers a large section of our population that are excluded from formal social security measures. It is clear that traditional or informal social security mechanisms based on solidarity cannot offer complete protection against contingencies during times of distress. However, it would be inappropriate to implement a social security system without having proper regard for existing informal social security mechanisms in traditional communities, as well as the informal employment context. In the process of transforming the South African social security system, the goals should ideally include the pursuit to transform and strengthen the existing informal social security system.

12 Conclusion

The discussion above demonstrates that informal social security represents a way of life for many families and communities in South Africa. In principle, informal social security provides a safety net for households that are excluded from the formal social security system, especially those that are faced with socio-economic hardships. Consequently, to maximise the potential for social security measures to protect poor households, formal programmes should ideally include a “transformative” element of redress in power inequalities and focus on enhancing communities’ capacity to protect themselves.148 Nevertheless, informal social security safety nets are under severe pressure for a number of reasons. First, many people who in some way contribute to these safety nets find themselves having to battle against the triple impact of poverty, unemployment and inequality. Second, this status quo was further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many families without breadwinners. Therefore, there is a need for the state to develop measures to ensure the sustenance and support of communities that rely on informal social security for their survival. Furthermore, it is important to uplift communities in order to ensure and improve their access to the basic amenities of life.

This article supports the view of Midgley and Sirojudin149 who suggest that policies should be adopted to strengthen community-based social security institutions. According to the authors, this would make it possible for informal social security schemes to incorporate the social insurance principle of risk sharing.150 Similarly, Guven and Karlena recommend that cash transfers should be linked to services that promote economic inclusion to support recipients and eventually rise as self-sufficient members of the community.151 To this end, it is recommended that informal social security initiatives should be supplemented with bottom-up developmental welfare and economic strategies geared towards galvanising and supporting rural communities, that arguably are the “torch bearers” of informal social security safety nets. The upscaling of the informal rural economy is central to the survival of informal social security. Furthermore, efforts for including indigenous people in formal social security systems are vital for tackling inequality and poverty, while respecting indigenous peoples’ cultural integrity and aspirations. On the one hand, coverage of indigenous peoples in general social security schemes should be guaranteed, with due attention to non-contributory schemes. On the other hand, specific measures targeting indigenous peoples should be considered to bring about effective inclusion in national social security systems.152 We conclude by highlighting the sentiments of Kaya and Seleti who postulate that “there is still great potentiality in the continent for promotion of African indigenous knowledge systems for sustainable community livelihood”. Further, the “history of the continent (slavery, colonisation and apartheid) has not completely destroyed the African intellectual, cultural and spiritual heritage”.153

Finally, it is submitted that the rich heritage bestowed by the traditional informal social security ought to be preserved and enhanced, as it not only provides relief to the poor, but also serves as a safety net to protect households and communities against poverty, unemployment, natural disasters and inequalities. 154